Well I compare the extreme left with the extreme right since it is basically the same imho. Different reasoning for the mindset of “what’s not with us is against us”.

No offense, but this is a childish view of politics. The extreme left is categorized by trying to care for the entire population, the extreme right is categorized by intense nationalism, xenphobia, and brutal class stratification.

Communists committed the same crimes as the Nazis so of into the same cell and the key is best disposed of.

No, they did not. Read Blackshirts and Reds. The Communists and the Nazis represented entirely different groups, and the Communists dramatically improved the lives of their citizenry while the Nazis brutally crushed them.

And the other big problem with pure socialism:

Why hasn’t it worked yet? No Utopia as of yet, only repression, human rights violation and death.

It has worked and continues to work. Read more than US state propaganda. Utopianism is anti-Marxist, Marxists advocate for Scientific Socialism.

It’s as if the human factor is the point where there is change needed, not the system itself.

This is Idealism. What’s considered Human Nature is expressed and reinforced by the system itself, the Mode of Production.

Read a book sometime.

Yes, minor implementations that won’t change anything at scale. The carrot to keep you trying in vain.

As someone who decided on the impractical major choice of Sociology when they were young, all I can say is that there a lot of economists, political scientists and sociologists that would argue otherwise.

Sure, in Capitalist countries you can find an endless supply of anti-Marxists.

A lot of folks would argue that democratic and authoritarian systems of government can be applied to economic systems that lean toward both the capitalist and socialist ends of the spectrum.

Sure, a lot of folks don’t actually know what Marxists advocate for as well. The vast majority don’t, in fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism

I really don’t need to be linked the Wikipedia pages on these concepts. I am aware that liberals exist and their ideas of Marxism and Socialism exist. This isn’t a book-reading competition, but I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I have read lots of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. I know what I advocate for, and what others advocate for, and what they advocated for.

Can you explain the State Structure advocated by Marxist-Leninists, and why it is considered “authoritarian” in a manner that isn’t arbitrary and vibes-based?

To restate this entire argument, it is essentially this:

Scary Words are a type of Socialist that is Spooky Word type of Socialist, as opposed to Nice Word type of Socialist. Spooky Word isn’t a structure, it’s an adjective, and Spooky Word Socialists also advocate for Nice Word structures, but because they actually exist in the real world, liberals call them Spooky Word Socialists instead of Nice Word Socialists.

Authoritarian is an adjective, not a structure. Democratic is a type of structure, Authoritarian is not. It’s a buzzword that means nothing at all.

I would say it’s important to evaluate all of these points as a whole. I think evaluating certain aspects of a system under a microscope without equating how it’s supposed to function tends to divert attention from the purpose of the hierarchical system to begin with.

Sure, sounds reasonable.

I don’t know if it means they’re automatically guided by bourgeois interest, but I would also hesitate to claim that just next it’s an SOE it’s immune from creating class stratification. My fear is that an increase of wealth disparity is an indication of a new mode of class stratification.

Correct, there is a contradiction at play, and a risk. We do not appear to see this playing against the CPC pruning and managing a Socialist Market economy though, at least not yet.

Not that I want to spiral into endless discussion again , but I think framing the argument where we must assume a dictatorship of the proletariat has occurred isn’t a logically sound way to question the effectiveness of any hierarchical system.

Again, I had to. Analyzing the CPC as a DotP would be a conversation in and of itself. If you disagree, we can discuss that point, but the limitations at play means we must make the assumption for the rest of the analysis. It isn’t perfect, but I can’t write a book, here.

I understand the benefit of a centralized economy, my main fear is that systems of hierarchical control are self reinforcing. Hierarchical systems stabilize over time as you utilize them for their intended purpose. If we take a look at the purpose of a profit driven SOE, it’s still to create capital. Now that capital is being controlled by the state, but simply putting that under a stricter hierarchy doesn’t mean that the system is going to change its inherent purpose.

Hierarchy isn’t the problem, class control is. Hierarchy is a tool. Creating Capital is absolutely important for the PRC, the lack of it under the Gang of Four led to struggles. The CPC controls and carefully manages and prunes the economy as it grows, and absorbs more as it socializes more of its economy as it ripens, so to speak.

If we assume that the CCP continue to nationalize private organizations until 100% of the production value is being controlled by the state, does that mean the purpose of the hierarchical system is going to change? There will still be people attempting to reinforce the hierarchal system they have been judged upon their entire careers. People have risen to places of power by reinforcing the system of profit, and they will try to protect the system that they excelled at.

This is where the Marxist Theory of the State comes in. If the economy is fully socialized, then it isn’t competing with itself, and is being planned by the people for the benefit of all. Class antagonisms no longer exist, and the state transitions, as Engels describes, to an administration of things, rather than a policing of people. It won’t be Anarchist, but it will be on the way to Communism (the state can’t fully wither away until global socialism is achieved).

I’m not an anarchist or anything and don’t agree with a lot of his hot takes, however if you’re interested Murray Bookchin’s analysis on hierarchy is pretty impressive.

I’m aware of the Anarchist critique of Hierarchy, I just don’t see it as the primary issue. Socialism isn’t a temporary sacrifice, but a drastic improvement on the status quo, and Communism an improvement on it.

An unfortunate rarity now a days. Thanks for keeping it classy.

You too!

I believe this is true, but I would argue that the fundamental change was that non-Party candidates were almost never allowed to run. As I noted, this is not due to a constitutional change but rather a change in electoral tradition. Anecdotally, as a result of this, all three my grandparents didn’t feel represented by their deputies/delegates, and welcomed that part of the Perestroyka changes, when the rules were relaxed and more alternative candidates appeared.

That’s a fair critique. The point I was trying to drive home, however, is that it was fundamentally Socialist, which I believe retained after 1936 as well.

I believe this to also be a non-ideal situation, but aren’t there at least party primaries, so that one can choose which candidate from the dominant party “runs” for the uncontested election? Whereas in USSR the candidates were chosen by the Party and not the electorate directly. (my understanding of the US electoral system is lacking, so I may be wrong here).

Not necessarily. There is an illusion of choice, in reality it’s largely run by the DNC and GOP. There are rare, minor upsets, but the ones that pose legitimate chance to shake things up are either heavily out-financed during the election, or are shunned by the party upon reaching some semblance of power. The electoral system of the US is a filter.

Thanks for the recommendation! I’ve started to read it a while ago, and mostly agreed with the contents. I’ll have to pick it up again.

No problem! Thanks for your input, much more reasonable than the other commenter, and not just because we agree on almost everything.

Tell that to literally any monarchy in history.

What do you think Capitalism is? It has dethroned the Monarchies throughout history, or relegated them to a fraction of their former power.

Did I say communist? Did I stutter?

All Socialist countries are headed by Communist parties currently, ideologically they are Communists. This is splitting hairs.

Monarchists didn’t really support Capitalism, and neither do Communists support Capitalism. Primarily, what is dominant in terms of class structure determines the system, broadly. Liberals want a system dominated by Capitalism and Capitalists, and support measures that protect and service that structure.

There’s no such thing as “authoritarian socialism,” and “democratic socialism” is a redundant statement purely to pretend communism isn’t democratic.

That’s why I say “tankie” is the new woke. Show me tankies on lemmy, and I’ll show you people advocating for democratization of the economy and government, even if they don’t want bourgeois democracy.

Soviets were de-facto abolished after 1936 (not due to the constitution itself, rather “by tradition”). While there technically were elections, in almost all cases there was only one candidate. The three of my grandparents that I grew up with (all proudly working-class - teacher, engineer and doctor, born in 1930s), never participated in elections with more than one candidate until Perestroyka (at which point the communist project was on its deathbed).

My understanding is that the Congress of Soviets was replaced with the Supreme Soviet, the democratic structure was changed but the Soviets remained, just shifted in form, and could still be used democratically, just not in all cases. A good analogy is that most local governments in the US run uncontested.

Note that I’m not even anti-USSR, it’s still markedly better than the bullshit capitalist systems. There actually was plenty of workspace democracy, and some local democracy, but I don’t think we should glorify it as some bastion of democracy. There still unfortunately was a kind of ruling class - the Party and MGB/KGB (but I should note that it was much easier for a working-class person to join their ranks than it is in liberal democracies). Rather, learn from what it got right, and fix what it got wrong.

I absolutely agree! The USSR was not perfect, but lots of it worked right as you said, and it was Socialist. I am primarily trying to combat blatant anticommunist mythology, not make a claim that nothing ever went wrong ever, which would be equally absurd. That’s why I stressed reading Blackshirts and Reds, which dispels the mythology and takes a critical, nuances look at the USSR.

Thanks for sharing!

Realistically, no one who was going to vote for Claudia De La Crúz is going to vote for Kamala now, they are going to swap to Jill Stein. This doesn’t really benefit the Democrats anyways.

“Just vote harder this time, the democrats will do a total reversal and let a leftist party be voted in in the future!” Lmao.

The good thing about PSL’s participation is that it highlights the ludicrous idea that electoralism will ever benefit the working class, hopefully more liberals see the blatant dictatorship of the bourgeoisie we live in and become radicalized.

Then run in local elections and fight for ranked choice voting

Will never work. The second a third party starts gaining traction, both the DNC and GOP collaborate against them. Ranked choice voting isn’t sufficient either, and even if it was, the DNC and GOP will only allow minor implementations at local levels to make it seem like voting works, and will toss the football back and forth forever. It will not work.

instead of only running sybolic national campaigns that only serve to spoil the left-leaning vote…

There is no left-leaning party other than the Greens and PSL in this election. Reform is impossible, only revolution can actually implement leftist change, which is why PSL even participates to begin with. It’s to tear the curtains back and show the kabuki theatre for what it is.

Lenin ended any oppurtunity for none CPSU members to be elected to the Soviets and banned factions in the CPSU in 1921.

This is a clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of the Soviets. All workers, regardless of position, could be part of Soviets, they formed the basic unit of government in general, similar to unions.

Secondly, you are writing in direct contrast to historical evidence provided by Pat Sloan, as he writes in Soviet Democracy:

“I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship is no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organization was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet?”

Finally, banning factions was critical for the Soviet Union’s survival. There was freedom of discussion, but wreckers and infiltrators stood serious threats of collapsing the new Socialist State. Would you have had them take the idealist route and collapse in 1923? This is an idealist, anti-Marxist view of Socialist practice.

He then eliminated opposition with the Cheka.

Yes, the Soviet Union was at war with invading Capitalist, Tsarist, and Fascist invaders and infiltrators.

Even before that the Communists acted under “war communism”, which meant killing anybody not 100% in line.

No, War Communism was a specific economic structure practiced by the Soviet Union in times of war. Where are you getting these wild misunderstandings of basic terminology? Your ass?

That very much included Machnos work in setting up a Soviet Democracy in Ukraine, due to them being Anarchists.

Makhno was no hero, nor was he attacked for “soviet democracy in Ukraine.” Makhno was a rapist, an anti-semite, and deliberately stood against the USSR. It was not a case of a random group of innocents being attacked by the big scary commies.

Stalin then abolished the Soviets in 1936.

No, Stalin did not abolish the Soviets in 1936. The Soviets remained until the dissolution of the USSR. This is just false, and we know it to be so based on historical record. Where did you pull this again? Your ass?

The Soviet Union had a bit of it, in the very beginning, but it failed and turned into a statist dictatorship.

Even the CIA said the USSR wasn’t a dictatorship.

That is why Stalin ordered the Anarchists to be killed in Spain as well

The USSR supported the Republicans, and did so by providing weaponry.

the Prague Spring got crushed due to moving into a more democratic direction as well as many other movements of worker uprisings.

The Prague Spring was a Liberal counter-revolution that sought to reinstate Capitalism.

“Years later, one of the protagonists of the “Prague Spring”, the Czech economist Ota Sik [3], admitted the real aim of the 1968 reforms. Sik, a supporter of the so-called “Third Way”, cynically admitted that the reforms were nothing but a deceptive maneuver and that, back then, he was “convinced that the only solution was pure capitalism” [4].”

What you have done here is send a Firehose of Falsehood, the majority of your claims were wrong, and the ones that weren’t sided with Capitalists and Fascists. You do not know what you are talking about either with respect to Marxism or to the history of the USSR.

Again, I repeat, I highly recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. It’s great for debunking popular Red Scare myths about Communism, and even includes a section for supposed “left” anticommunism. It’s clear, easy to read, and doesn’t require understanding any Marxist theory to enjoy, though I can also point out some good beginner texts if you want those too.

There was semblance of socialism yes. But it wasn’t a socialist government.

What does this mean? Can you offer any explanation beyond “because I said so?”

Also is it really socialist if there are levels of people who get different levels of care, pay, and living conditions?

Yes, absolutely. What gave you the idea that Socialism is when everyone gets paid the same? Marx directly argued against that, along with Lenin.

Are you on the other side trying to sell us on Freedom and Democracy™(oil lover edition)?

That’s the logical and practical conclusion of all who would side with the Tsar over the Soviets, or any other conflict like that. It’s “left” anticommunism, which ultimately does far more harm to the left than good.

Any time you ask for a movement they support, it’s nearly always some leftist offshoot that lasted a year or two and then became a footnote in history because it either didn’t work or couldn’t actually protect itself and thus failed to adequately organize.

Socialism means collective ownership of the means of production.

Generally agree, though it’s important to also recognize that it’s a transitional status towards Communism, at least in Marxist theory (which the USSR followed).

The issue with the Soviet Union was that all means of production were controlled by the state.

That’s not an issue at all, centralization of the Means of Production in the hands of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is straight from Marx and Engels:

“The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished”. It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase: “a free State”, both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the State out of hand.”

-Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

However there was no way in which the people controlled the state, since at least 1936 and argueably earlier then that.

This is plainly false. The CPSU was in charge, not a bourgeois class, and the people elected representatives among the workers in a process called “Soviet Democracy.” Here’s a handy infographic:

All in all, I highly recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. It’s great for debunking popular Red Scare myths about Communism, and even includes a section for supposed “left” anticommunism. It’s clear, easy to read, and doesn’t require understanding any Marxist theory to enjoy, though I can also point out some good beginner texts if you want those too.

Looking for it. Though someone else posted a twitter link here.

Lenin made the clearest case for it in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Financial and Industrial Capital is exported directly to the sources of raw materials and lower cost of living, which is then hyper-exploited for super-profits domestically.

Even within Capitalist countries, starvation is kept dangerous because Capitalism requires a “reserve army of labor,” as Marx put it. It’s the idea of “if you weren’t doing this job, someone would kill for it” that suppresses wages.

Can you explain? The USSR was undoubdtedly Socialist, both Marxists and non-Marxists agree.

Wasn’t this debunked previously? Is this new, actual evidence, or is it still just relying on that one tweet as a source?